James 2:26

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(26) As the body without the spirit . . .—A closing simile of much force, As the body without the spirit, so faith without works. But the term “without” is hardly strong enough to represent the Greek “apart from.” Of our own human wisdom we had been rather inclined to say that works were likest to the body, and faith to the breath or animation thereof. “The Apostle’s view,” says Alford, “seems to be this, Faith is the body, the sum and substance of the Christian life; works (= obedience) the moving and quickening of that body, just as the spirit is the moving and quickening principle of the natural body. So that ‘as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.’ ”

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

2:14-26 Those are wrong who put a mere notional belief of the gospel for the whole of evangelical religion, as many now do. No doubt, true faith alone, whereby men have part in Christ's righteousness, atonement, and grace, saves their souls; but it produces holy fruits, and is shown to be real by its effect on their works; while mere assent to any form of doctrine, or mere historical belief of any facts, wholly differs from this saving faith. A bare profession may gain the good opinion of pious people; and it may procure, in some cases, worldly good things; but what profit will it be, for any to gain the whole world, and to lose their souls? Can this faith save him? All things should be accounted profitable or unprofitable to us, as they tend to forward or hinder the salvation of our souls. This place of Scripture plainly shows that an opinion, or assent to the gospel, without works, is not faith. There is no way to show we really believe in Christ, but by being diligent in good works, from gospel motives, and for gospel purposes. Men may boast to others, and be conceited of that which they really have not. There is not only to be assent in faith, but consent; not only an assent to the truth of the word, but a consent to take Christ. True believing is not an act of the understanding only, but a work of the whole heart. That a justifying faith cannot be without works, is shown from two examples, Abraham and Rahab. Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Faith, producing such works, advanced him to peculiar favours. We see then, ver. 24, how that by works a man is justified, not by a bare opinion or profession, or believing without obeying; but by having such faith as produces good works. And to have to deny his own reason, affections, and interests, is an action fit to try a believer. Observe here, the wonderful power of faith in changing sinners. Rahab's conduct proved her faith to be living, or having power; it showed that she believed with her heart, not merely by an assent of the understanding. Let us then take heed, for the best works, without faith, are dead; they want root and principle. By faith any thing we do is really good; as done in obedience to God, and aiming at his acceptance: the root is as though it were dead, when there is no fruit. Faith is the root, good works are the fruits; and we must see to it that we have both. This is the grace of God wherein we stand, and we should stand to it. There is no middle state. Every one must either live God's friend, or God's enemy. Living to God, as it is the consequence of faith, which justifies and will save, obliges us to do nothing against him, but every thing for him and to him.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

For as the body without the spirit is dead - Margin, "breath." The Greek word πνεύμα pneuma is commonly used to denote spirit or soul, as referring to the intelligent nature. The meaning here is the obvious one, that the body is animated or kept alive by the presence of the soul, and that when that is withdrawn, hope departs. The body has no life independent of the presence of the soul.

So faith without works is dead also - There is as much necessity that faith and works should be united to constitute true religion, as there is that the body and soul should be united to constitute a living man. If good works do not follow, it is clear that there is no true and proper faith; none that justifies and saves. If faith produces no fruit of good living, that fact proves that it is dead, that it has no power, and that it is of no value. This shows that James was not arguing against real and genuine faith, nor against its importance in justification, but against the supposition that mere faith was all that was necessary to save a man, whether it was accompanied by good works or not. He maintains that if there is genuine faith it will always be accompanied by good works, and that it is only that faith which can justify and save. If it leads to no practical holiness of life, it is like the body without the soul, and is of no value whatever. James and Paul both agree in the necessity of true faith in order to salvation; they both agree that the tendency of true faith is to produce a holy life; they both agree that where there is not a holy life there is no true religion, and that a man cannot be saved. We may learn, then, from the whole doctrine of the New Testament on the subject, that unless we believe in the Lord Jesus we cannot be justified before God; and that unless our faith is of that kind which will produce holy living, it has no more of the characteristics of true religion than a dead body has of a living man.

Reconciliation of Paul and James.

At the close of the exposition of this chapter, it may be proper to make a few additional remarks on the question in what way the statements of James can be reconciled with those of Paul, on the subject of justification. A difficulty has always been felt to exist on the subject; and there are, perhaps, no readers of the New Testament who are not perplexed with it. Infidels, and particularly Voltaire, have seized the occasion which they supposed they found here to sneer against the Scriptures, and to pronounce them to be contradictory. Luther felt the difficulty to be so great that, in the early part of his career, he regarded it as insuperable, and denied the inspiration of James, though be afterwards changed his opinion, and believed that his Epistle was a part of the inspired canon; and one of Luther's followers was so displeased with the statements of James, as to charge him with willful falsehood. - Dr. Dwight's Theology, Serm. lxviii. The question is, whether their statements can be so reconciled, or can be shown to be so consistent with each other, that it is proper to regard them both as inspired men? Or, are their statements so opposite and contradictory, that it cannot be believed that both were under the influences of an infallible Spirit? In order to answer these questions, there are two points to be considered:

I. What the real difficulty is; and,

II. How the statements of the two writers can be reconciled, or whether there is any way of explanation which will remove the difficulty.

I. What the difficulty is. This relates to two points - that James seems to contradict Paul in express terms, and that both writers make use of the same case to illustrate their opposite sentiments.

(1) that James seems to contradict Paul in express terms. The doctrine of Paul on the subject of justification is stated in such language as the following: "By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight," Romans 3:20. "We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," Romans 3:28. "Being justified by faith," Romans 5:1. "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ," Galatians 2:16. Compare Romans 3:24-26; Galatians 3:11; Titus 3:5-6. On the other hand, the statement of James seems to be equally explicit that a man is not justified by faith only, but that good works come in for an important share in the matter. "Was not Abraham our father justified by works?" James 2:21. "Seest thou how faith wrought with his works?" James 2:22. "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only," James 2:24.

(2) both writers refer to the same case to illustrate their views - the case of Abraham. Thus Paul Romans 4:1-3 refers to it to prove that justification is wholly by faith. "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness." And thus James Jam 2:21-22 refers to it to prove that justification is by works: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?"

The difficulty of reconciling these statements would be more clearly seen if they occurred in the writings of the same author; by supposing, for example, that the statements of James were appended to the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and were to be read in connection with that chapter. Who, the infidel would ask, would not be struck with the contradiction? Who would undertake to harmonize statements so contradictory? Yet the statements are equally contradictory, though they occur in different writers, and especially when it is claimed for both that they wrote under the influence of inspiration.

II. The inquiry then is, how these apparently contradictory statements may be reconciled, or whether there is any way of explanation that will remove the difficulty. This inquiry resolves itself into two - whether there is any theory that can be proposed that would relieve the difficulty, and whether that theory can be shown to be well founded.

(1) is there any theory which would remove the diffficulty - any explanation which can be given on this point which, if true, would show that the two statements may be in accordance with each other and with truth?

Before suggesting such an explanation, it may be further observed, that, as all history has shown, the statements of Paul on the subject of justification are liable to great abuse. All the forms of Antinomianism have grown out of such abuse, and are only perverted statements of his doctrine. It has been said, that if Christ has freed us from the necessity of obeying the law in order to justification; if he has fulfilled it in our stead, and borne its penalty, then the law is no longer binding on those who are justified, and they are at liberty to live as they please. It has been further said, that if we are saved by faith alone, a man is safe the moment he believes, and good works are therefore not necessary. It is possible that such views as these began to prevail as early as the time of James, and, if so, it was proper that there should be an authoritative apostolic statement to correct them, and to check these growing abuses. If, therefore, James had, as it has been supposed he had, any reference to the sentiments of Paul, it was not to correct his sentiments, or to controvert them but it was to correct the abuses which began already to flow from his doctrines, and to show that the alleged inferences did not properly follow from the opinions which he held; or, in other words, to show that the Christian religion required men to lead holy lives, and that the faith by which it was acknowledged that the sinner must be justified, was a faith which was productive of good works.

Now, all that is necessary to reconcile the statements of Paul and James, is to suppose that they contemplate the subject of justification from different points of view, and with reference to different inquiries. Paul looks at it before a man is converted, with reference to the question how a sinner may be justified before God; James after a man is converted, with reference to the question how he may show that he has the genuine faith which justifies. Paul affirms that the sinner is justified before God only by faith in the Lord Jesus, and not by his own works; James affirms that it is not a mere speculative or dead faith which justifies, but only a faith that is productive of good works, and that its genuineness is seen only by good works. Paul affirms that whatever else a man has, if he have not faith in the Lord Jesus, he cannot be justified; James affirms that no matter what pretended faith a man has, if it is not a faith which is adapted to produce good works, it is of no value in the matter of justification. Supposing this to be the true explanation, and that these are the "stand-points" from which they view the subject, the reconciliation of these two writers is easy: for it was and is still true, that if the question is asked how a sinner is to be justified before God, the answer is to be that of Paul, that it is by faith alone, "without the works of the law;" if the question be asked, how it can be shown what is the kind of faith that justifies, the answer is that of James, that it is only that which is productive of holy living and practical obedience.

continued...

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

26. Faith is a spiritual thing: works are material. Hence we might expect faith to answer to the spirit, works to the body. But James reverses this. He therefore does not mean that faith in all cases answers to the body; but the FORM of faith without the working reality answers to the body without the animating spirit. It does not follow that living faith derives its life from works, as the body derives its life from the animating spirit.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

The spirit: this may be understood either, according to the marginal reading, of the breath; and then the sense is, that life and breath being inseparable companions, as the the of breath argues want of life in the body, so, lively faith and works being as inseparable, want of works argues want of life in faith: or, according to the reading in the text, spirit, taking it for that substance which animates the body, and is the cause of vital functions in it, which is sometimes called spirit, Psalm 31:5 Ecclesiastes 12:7 1 Corinthians 2:11; and then the sense is, that as a body is without a soul, so faith is without works, i.e. both are dead. As a body without the soul hath the shape and lineaments of a man, but nothing that may discover life in it; so faith without works may be like true faith, have some resemblance of it, but hath nothing to discover the truth and life of it.

So faith; not true faith, for that cannot be dead, but an empty profession of faith, which is rather called faith by way of concession, or because of some likeness it hath to it, than really is so; as a dead body, though called a body, is really but a carcass.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

For as the body without the spirit is dead,.... This simile is made use of to illustrate what the apostle had asserted in James 2:17 that as a body, when the spirit or soul is departed from it, or the breath is gone out of it, is dead, and without motion, and useless; which the Jews (d) express in like manner, , "the body without the spirit", or "breath, is a carcass".

So faith without works is dead also: a vain thing, useless and unprofitable, can neither justify, nor save, nor prove that a man is justified, or will be saved.

(d) Ohel. Moed, fol. 15. 1.

Geneva Study Bible

{14} For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

(14) The conclusion repeated again: faith does not bring forth fruits and works is not faith, but a dead carcass.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

Jam 2:26 is added as a reason (γάρ), primarily indeed, to what directly goes before (ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη), but thereby likewise to the universal sentiment contained in Jam 2:24. James here repeats the same judgment which he has already expressed (Jam 2:17) on πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων; yet heightens it by the comparison with σῶμα χωρὶς πνεύματος: for as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

τὸ σῶμα χωρὶς πνεύματος] By σῶμα is to be understood the human body, and by πνεῦμα the vital principle animating it, by which it lives; whether James has contemplated πνεῦμα definitely as the intellectual spirit of man (as “the principle of the morally-determined and God-derived life peculiar to man”), or generally as the breath of life proceeding from God (see Genesis 6:17, LXX.: πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐν ᾖ ἐστὶ πνεῦμα ζωῆς; Revelation 11:11; Revelation 13:15), remains uncertain. With the body without the spirit, which is νεκρός, James compares (οὕτως is not “the sign of assurance = even so certainly,” Baumgarten) faith without works (the article τῶν denotes works as those which belong to πίστις, its corresponding works), which is also νεκρός. This comparison appears so far incongruous, as the relation of ἔργα to πίστις does not correspond with that of πνεῦμα to the σῶμα, since ἔργα are the fruit, and not the source of πίστις.[160] Therefore some interpreters have by ἔργα understood not works themselves, but love (Theile), or “the innermost life of faith in its outwardly operative and visible manifestation” (Frank); but such an exchange of ideas is not to be justified. Already some of the older expositors, as Gomar, Piscator, Laurentius, Wolf, and others, and recently Philippi (Theile is undecided), explain ΠΝΕῦΜΑ = breath. This, however, is even linguistically objectionable, as ΠΝΕῦΜΑ in the N. T. occurs in the meaning of breath proceeding out of the mouth only in 2 Thessalonians 2:8, a passage in accordance with the O. T.; but also in sense this explanation is not justified, for although “the breath is the proof of the existence of life in the body” (Philippi), yet the ideas breath and works have too great disparity between them to be parallelized with each other. It is more natural, with de Wette, Kern, Hofmann, Wiesinger, and Weiss, to assume that James intends not to compare the single members with each other (ΣῶΜΑ with ΠΊΣΤΙς, and ΠΝΕῦΜΑ with ἜΡΓΟΙς), but to make prominent that a faith which is ΧΩΡῚς ΤῶΝ ἜΡΓΩΝ, is thereby proved to be like to the body, in which the πνεῦμα, the source of life, is wanting—which is thus only a dead body. With this sentence, in which the idea expressed in Jam 2:17 is strongly confirmed, James closes this section, as from this it is self-evident that faith without works cannot effect justification for man, and consequently not ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑ, and therefore profits nothing (Jam 2:14).

[160] Lange denies the apparent incongruity, because “the spirit also, in virtue of its actuality, effects the higher visibility of the body!”

1. The doctrine of James in this section is according to expression in opposition with that of the Apostle Paul (James: ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον; Paul, Galatians 2:16 : οὖ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως; James asks: Ἀβραὰμ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαίωθη; Paul, in Romans 4:2, says: εἰ Ἀβραὰμ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, ἐχεῖκαύχημα, ἀλλʼ οὐ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν). It is asked whether also the sentiment of the one contradicts that of the other. Until the time of Luther, the conviction prevailed that the two agreed in thought. This is maintained in recent times by Neander, Thiersch, Hofmann, Wiesinger, Lange, Hengstenberg, Philippi, and others. Luther, on the contrary, was of opinion that the doctrine of James decidedly contradicted that of Paul; and the same view has been expressed in recent times by de Wette, Kern, Baur, Schwegler, and others, also Ranch. There is a middle view, that there is indeed a diversity of doctrine between Paul and James, but that this does not exclude a higher unity; thus Schmid, Weizsäcker (Renter’s Repert. Oct. 1855), Lechler, and others.

Already Theophylact, Oecumenius, Bede have, for the sake of harmonizing the difference, asserted that the ἔργα of James are different from those of which Paul speaks; Paul intends opera legis (Oecumenius: τὰ κατὰ νόμον σαββατισμῶν καὶ περιτομῆς καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἁγνισμῶν); James, on the contrary, opera fidei (Oecumenius: ἔργα τὰ πίστιν βιβαιοῦιτα). This is indeed true. Paul has to do with Judaizing opponents who maintained the necessity of circumcision, and consequently of all legal works; but James, with such Christians who trusted to simple πίστις, and thought that this would secure their salvation, although destitute of corresponding works. Paul had thus to prove that ἔργα τοῦ νόμου were not necessary; James, that ἔργα τῆς πίστεως were necessary. Nevertheless, this recognition of the different relations does not suffice to an actual harmonizing of the difference; for it has with truth been maintained that, according to the doctrinal system of Paul, a justifying efficacy is denied not only to works of law, but also to works of faith, since these last do not precede, but follow justification.

Accordingly a different meaning of the term πίστις has been adopted, and it has been maintained that by πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων James understands only bare speculation (Oecumenius: ἡ ἀπλῆ συγκατάθεσις), the frigida et nuda notitia, or indeed even the falsa professio fidei. This is certainly not entirely suitable, though Paul does not know by name a πίστις νεκρά. But although it were correct, yet the recognition of this distinction does not suffice to reconcile the difference; for Wieseler is decidedly right when, against Schmid, Olshausen, Neander, and others, he remarks, that it is one thing to say, To be justified by faith which is proved by works, and another thing, To be justified by works in which faith is proved. Already by Calvin, Calovius, Gerhard, and others, and in recent times particularly by Hofmann, Wiesinger, Brückner, Lange, Philippi, and others, the wished-for reconciliation has been attempted to be brought about, by ascribing a different meaning to the word δικαιοῦσθαι in James from what it has in Paul; that James speaks not de actu, but de statu justificationis. But either thereby a meaning is assigned to the word which it never has, or there results from it in James an idea inappropriate to the connection; see exposition of the verses in question. Hengstenberg (Brief des Jakobus in the Evang. Kirchenz. 1866, No. 91–94) correctly maintains that δικαιοῦσθαι has with Paul and James the same meaning; but when he attempts to prove the agreement of the two modes of expression by the supposition that, as there are different stages of faith, so there are different stages of justification, and that James speaks of a more perfect justification than Paul in the passages in question, this cannot be admitted, since it contradicts the nature of divine justification to conceive it as advancing from an imperfect to a more and more perfect stage. Even the justification at the last judgment is in itself not more perfect than that by which God in this life absolves the believer from his sins; the distinction consisting only in this, that by the former he obtains salvation as a present blessing, and that in all its fulness, which by the latter was conferred on him as a blessing yet future.[161]

[161] It is incorrect when Hengstenberg says: “If by faith is understood genuine living faith, and by works genuine works proceeding from faith, justification by faith and justification by works can be taught without contradiction;” since the justification of which Paul speaks is the reason and not the consequence of works of faith: on which account even Riggenbach (“On Justification,” etc., in the Stud. u. Krit. 1868, Part II.) has not been able to approve of this assertion of Hengstenberg. It is also no less incorrect when Hengstenberg, in spite of ἐξ ἔργων … οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον, ver. 24, thinks that “in James also faith alone is represented as justifying,” since James does not give the name of justification to God’s act of grace which is effectual in man only through faith.

The exposition given in the above pages has shown that the idea of the word δικαιοῦσθαι with James is none other than what it is with Paul, but that by it James has in view the justification that places believers at the last judgment in the full enjoyment of salvation, whereas Paul denotes by it the justification that puts believers already in this world in a gracious relation toward God. Only on this supposition does James say what he designs to say; for if δικαιοῦσθαι (so also σώζειν, Jam 2:14) refers to the judgment of God still in the future for believers, the proof that it has ἔργα for its essential condition effectually hits the opponent who thought to be able to obtain σωτηρία by an inoperative faith.

That the doctrine of James so understood is in agreement with that of Paul follows from the following remarks:—(1) James here evidently says nothing against the Pauline doctrine of justification, since his ἐξ ἔργων does not refer to being placed in a new relation to God, of which there is no mention. The inquiry, by what this is conditioned, is not discussed by James in his Epistle at all; yet it is to be observed that to him the foundation of the Christian life is πίστις, and that he designates the new birth (chap. Jam 1:18) as a work of God, which only takes place through the will of God, and indeed so that God implants the word of truth in man. That James in this asserts something which is not in contradiction, but in agreement with Paul’s doctrine of justification, requires no proof. (2) The doctrine of Paul concerning the future judgment of believers does not conflict with what James says of δικαιοῦσθαι, although he does not use that expression in reference to it (except in Romans 2:13). It is to be observed, that Paul very definitely distinguishes the justifying act of God, by which the forgiveness of sins is adjudged to the believer for the sake of Christ, from the judicial act of God by which σωτηρία will either be adjudged or denied to the justified. Justification (so called by Paul) is conditioned on the part of man only by πίστις; the future σωτηρία will only be adjudged to him in whom πίστις has proved itself to be a working principle. As, on the one hand, it is incorrect to affirm that, according to Paul, he only is justified by πίστις with whom it does not remain inactive; so, on the other hand, it is incorrect to think that according to him no reference is taken of ἔργα in the judgment of God.[162] Wiesinger, in proof that Paul denies the justifying (the word taken in his sense) efficacy of an inoperative faith, adduces the passages, Romans 8:4; Romans 8:13; Romans 13:8-10; 1 Corinthians 6:7-11; 1 Corinthians 6:13; Galatians 5:6; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 2:8-10; Colossians 1:10; Titus 2:14; but it is, on the contrary, to be observed that in none of these passages (except Ephesians 2:8, in the words ἐστε σεσωσμένοι διὰ τῆς πίστεως) is the discourse of being justified (ΔΙΚΑΙΟῦΣΘΑΙ, in the sense of Paul). All these passages, however, prove that Paul makes the attainment of ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑ, or the future inheritance of the kingdom of God, conditioned on the ἔργοις of the justified. It is to be observed that in Galatians 5:6, ΠΊΣΤΙς ΔΙʼ ἈΓΆΠΗς ἘΝΕΡΓΟΥΜΈΝΗ does not (as is almost universally assumed) refer to ΔΙΚΑΙΟῦΣΘΑΙ, but to ἈΠΕΚΔΈΧΕΣΘΑΙ ἘΛΠΊΔΑ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗς, thus to the hope of those who are σεσωσμένοι διὰ τῆς πίστεως. Further, in 1 Corinthians 6:11, the Christians, to whom Paul says ἈΠΕΛΟΎΣΑΣΘΕ, ἩΓΙΆΣΘΗΤΕ, ἘΔΙΚΑΙΏΘΗΤΕ,[163] are exhorted to consider that the ἄδικοι shall not inherit the βασιλεία Θεοῦ; also, in Galatians 5:25, it is indicated that the ζῆν πνεύματι, which is peculiar to believers, must also be a στοιχεῖν πνεύματι; and lastly, Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:10 says expressly that we all (that is, Christians who as such are δικαιωθέντες) must appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, ἵνα κομίσηται ἕκαστος τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν, εἴτε ἀγαθόν, εἴτε κακόν. From these passages, which might be greatly multiplied, it is not to be denied that Paul, as he definitely excludes every co-operation of human works in justification,[164] so he no less definitely represents the future salvation as conditioned by the practice of ἔργα τῆς πίστεως (see Hengstenberg, Evangel. Kirchenztg. 1866, p. 1119 ff.).[165] But if this is the case, then in reference to this point there occurs a difference between Paul and James, not in thought, but only in expression; namely, Paul denotes by the word δικαιοῦν that declaration of righteousness or acquittal by God, by which the believer is placed in a new filial relation to God; whilst James means that declaration of righteousness or acquittal by God, by which he who is born again as a child of God receives the σωτηρία imparted at the judgment; but with both δικαιοῦν means “to declare righteous,” “to acquit,” but not “to prove one righteous,” or “to convert him into a righteous man.” So also, in what both say concerning Abraham, there is no difference in sentiment; the only difference is that ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην and ἐδικαιώθη are considered by James as two points, whilst Paul considers the second to be equivalent to the first.

[162] By this it is not intended to be denied that Paul often combines the two acts as one act of divine salvation, and also that he frequently refers the final salvation (not less than justification) purely to the grace of God. The problem is rather this, that, on the one hand, the final salvation is represented as a pure act of God’s grace, but, on the other hand, the final judgment is as definitely represented as an act carried into effect κατὰ τὰ ἔργα; as by Paul, so in the Scriptures generally. The solution of this problem, however, belongs not to our present subject.

[163] By ἡγιάσθητε and ἐδικαιώθητε a change of man’s disposition is not in itself designated, but the change of his relation to God effected by God. Meyer in loco incorrectly gives to the word δικαιοῦσθαι a meaning (namely, “to be made righteous”) which it has elsewhere neither with Paul nor in any other passage of the N. T.

[164] Even with the recognition of this undeniable fact, Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith is not always understood in strict precision. This is particularly the case when it is said, that according to Paul faith justifies, so far as it is a principle of new life, whereas it is rather the case that, according to him, faith is a principle of new life, because it justifies. Only when this is misunderstood can it be said, on the supposition that Paul and James understand by δικαιοῦν the same divine act, that between them there is no fundamental, but only an unessential contrast. See remarks of the author in the Erl. Zeitschr. April number, 1862, p. 214 f., where among other things it is said: “The reason of justification is not the ethical nature of faith, but solely and entirely the merit of Christ or Christ Himself with whom faith, that is, faith in Christ, places us in connection. We are not justified for the sake of faith, but through faith (διὰ τῆς πίστεως) for the sake of Christ: thus it holds good for the justification which is by faith alone, that every reference to works is entirely excluded.”

[165] The objection of Philippi, that the declaration of righteousness in the judgment takes place not ἐκ τῶν ἔργων, but only κατὰ τὰ ἔργα, is contradicted by the word of Christ, Matthew 12:37.

2. If from what has been said it follows that the doctrine of James is not in contradiction with that of Paul, then every reason for the opinion that James wrote his Epistle with reference to Paul falls to the ground. The employment of the same expressions by both is indeed surprising, but it is to be observed that these expressions have their origin neither in Paul nor in James, but already occur in the O. T. Paul uses the expressions δικαιοῦσθαι, δικαιοσύνη, δικαίωσις, chiefly in a relation foreign to the O. T., to which, however, he was led by the words ἐλογίσθη εἰς δικαιοσύνην. James, on the contrary, uses them not in the application peculiar to Paul, but in the manner in which they are used in the O. T. Also the reference to Abraham by James is not to be explained on the ground that Paul confirms his doctrine of justification by what happened to Abraham; for, since James designed to appeal for his assertion to an O. T. type, it was entirely natural that his glance should first fall on Abraham; also the distinction is to be observed that James used Abraham only as an example, whereas Paul, as Schleiermacher correctly observes, “referred to him his entire peculiar system of doctrine, whilst he would trace back to him the special covenant of the people with God.”

From all this it follows that James neither designed an attack upon the Pauline doctrine itself, for in this case he would have been obliged to demonstrate the necessity of ἔργα νόμου, nor also an attack upon a misunderstanding of it, for then he would have been obliged to show that his readers could only regard themselves as δικαιωθέντες, when their faith was to them an impulse to the practice of good works;[166] rather the Pauline doctrine was unknown to him, since otherwise he would necessarily have conformed to Paul’s mode of representation. By this likewise the opinion is confirmed, that the composition of the Epistle belongs not to the later, but to the earlier apostolic times; see on this Sec. 4 of the Introduction, and the treatise of Weiss mentioned above; also his bibl. Theol. p. 124 f.

[166] How the deductions of James are to be directed against a misunderstanding of the Pauline doctrine, if δικαιοῦσθαι has with him the meaning of “to be proved,” is in fact not to be understood, so much the less as the justifying power of faith assuredly does not depend on its being proved by works before men.

Expositor's Greek Testament

Jam 2:26. πνεύματος: Spitta’s suggested reading, κινήματος, is very ingenious, but quite unnecessary; רוח is often used of “breath,” and the Greek equivalent, πνεῦμα, is also used in the same way in the Septuagint.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

26. For as the body without the spirit is dead …] Some MSS. omit the conjunction, but the evidence for retaining it preponderates. The reasoning seems to refer Rahab’s justification by works to the wider law that faith without works is dead (as in James 2:17) and therefore cannot justify. Our usual mode of thought would lead us to speak of works, the outward visible acts, as the body, and of faith as the spirit or vivifying principle. From St James’s standpoint, however, faith “by itself” was simply the assent of the intellect to a dogma or series of dogmas, and this seemed to him to be “dead” until it was vitalised by love shewing itself in act. St Paul reproves the deadness of mere morality, St James that of mere orthodoxy. St James, it will be noted, adopts the simple division of man’s nature into “body and spirit,” rather than St Paul’s more philosophical trichotomy of “body, soul and spirit.” 1 Thessalonians 5:23. Comp. note on ch. James 3:13.

faith without works] More literally, faith apart from works.

ON THE TEACHING OF ST PAUL AND ST JAMES

The view which has been given in the notes seems to the writer clear and coherent in itself, consistent with what we know as to the relations between the two Apostles, and involving less violence of interpretation than any other hypothesis. Two other views have, however, been maintained with arguments more or less plausible, and it will be well to notice them briefly.

(1) There is the position assumed by some of the bolder critics of the French and German Schools, that there was a real antagonism in the Apostolic Church, not only between the Judaizing teachers and St Paul, but between that Apostle and the three, Peter, James, and John, to whom the Church of the Circumcision looked as its natural leaders. On this assumption, the writer of the Acts of the Apostles strives to gloss over the divergence of the two parties, and to represent an unreal unity. The messages to the Seven Churches are “a cry of passionate hate against St Paul and his followers” (Renan, St Paul, p. 367). When St James says, “Wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead,” he is probably pointing at St Paul himself. From the point of view of those who hold this theory it is, perhaps, a small thing that it is inconsistent with the belief that the teaching of St James and of St Paul had, as its source, the inspiration of the Eternal Spirit, who, though working in many different ways and with wide diversity of gifts, is yet the Spirit of the Truth which is essentially one. But on simply historical grounds the theory is, it is believed, untenable. St Paul himself acknowledges that after he had privately laid before them the sum and substance of the Gospel as he preached it, James, Cephas, and John gave to him the right hands of fellowship (Galatians 2:9). James appears as giving a public sanction to that Gospel at the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:13-21). Long after the Judaizing teachers had been doing their worst for years, the “right hand of fellowship” is still held out by the one teacher to the other (Acts 21:17-25). The question whether this hypothesis is as satisfactory an explanation of the facts with which it deals, as that which I have here given, I am content to leave to the judgment of the reader.

(2) The other theory has at least the merit of accepting the teaching of each of the two writers as in itself inspired and true. It assumes that St James wrote after St Paul, and aimed at correcting inferences that had been wrongly drawn from his doctrine, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. How to reconcile their statements on this assumption is a problem which has been variously solved. (a) It has been said that St Paul speaks of man’s justification before God, St James of the proof of that justification before the eyes of men; but of this there is not a shadow of proof in the language of either writer. (b) It has been maintained that St Paul speaks of a true faith, St James of that which is false or feigned; but nothing in the language of the latter, though he stigmatizes the faith which is without works as dead, suggests the thought that it did not mean a real acceptance of the dogma which it professed to hold. (c) It has been held that the “works” of which St Paul speaks as unable to justify, are the ceremonial works of the law of Moses, those on which the Pharisees laid stress; but the width of St Paul’s teaching as to the nature and office of the law in Galatians 3, Romans 7 scatters this view to the winds at once. (d) There is a nearer approximation to the truth in the solution which finds in St James’s faith the intellectual acceptance of a dogma, in St Paul’s the trust in a living Person as willing and able to save, and therefore the confidence that salvation is attainable by him who so trusts. This is, in the main, the view that has been taken in these notes, with the exception of the point on which stress has been laid above, that the Antinomianism which St James condemned was that of ultra-Jewish teachers, who taught a justification by faith in Monotheism, and not of an ultra-Pauline party. It agrees practically with the distinction drawn by the Schoolmen that St James speaks of a fides informis, rudimentary and incomplete, St Paul of a fides formata, developed or completed by Love. Errors, however, assume subtle disguises. Those who used St James’s name in the Apostolic age dwelt so much on outward acts apart from the motive that gives them life, as sufficient for man’s acceptance with God, that it was necessary for St Paul to revive the truth which had been first distorted and then denied, that “the just by faith shall live” (Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11). His teaching again, in its turn, led men to think that they might be justified by faith, not in God who justifies, but in a dogma about justification. It was well that both aspects of the truth should have been presented then, and have been preserved for the guidance of the Church in all ages, as completing each the other. We need not fear to be as varied in our teaching as were those who were taught of God, and to tell men, according to their variations in character, as they require more deepening of the spiritual life, or more strengthening for practical activity, now that they must be justified by faith, and now that they must be justified by works.

Bengel's Gnomen

Jam 2:26. Γὰρ, for) For is used in the place of therefore, as Romans 3:28, note.—τὸ σῶμα χωρὶς πνεύματος, the body without a spirit) πνεῦμα often denotes πνοὴν, the breath, which is the sign of life; but when it is opposed to the body, it denotes the spirit or soul: nor is that sense foreign to the meaning of this passage. Faith without works resembles a lifeless body; but it does not therefore follow that living faith derives its life from works. It has been already explained, at Jam 2:21, why James has mentioned works rather than the peculiar energy of faith. Vain pretenders have the form, but not the power of godliness. 2 Timothy 3:5; Titus 1:16.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 26. - Conclusion of the whole matter: "As the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead."



James 2:26

Vincent's Word Studies

Works (τῶν ἔργων)

Note the article: the works belonging or corresponding to faith; its works.